Captain Phaneuf

[Joe S.]

Well we'll have some indication of his worth the next 2 games anyway.

Don't we already know? Didn't we see the Leafs flounder when he was out for about 20 games or so a few years back?

I remember when Sundin was hurt in the 2002 playoffs and the Leafs still made the conference finals it proved Mats was expendable.

you sir, are awesome.

 

[Hampreacher]

Phaneuf is a number 1 defenseman. He would be a number one or two on most teams. Most teams would trade for him. He plays against the top players that effects his plus minus. He plays extra minutes and tired players make more mistakes when tired. That is tired from being over played. His suspension his problem was two fold. First His name is not Chara who has done far worse and got nothing. Second theThornton incidentand the league wanting to come down hard. On the hit admittedly i do have a bias but it appeared like he did try to avoid the hit and Miller did change direction and in process put his head down and thus more prone to falling forward.

 

[Rebel_1812]

The logic is akin to not resigning either Bozak or Grabbo; because neither is a true number one center.

Except for the guy actually producing like a #1 C, but alrighty then.

Well Nik's point was that he wasn't a true number #1 due to flaws in his game.  But if we quantify it with letters, Phaneuf is a 1B defense men at worse.

 

[Rebel_1812]

WHo are we going to sign then? No one is coming, and we have to suit up a team. There are no free agents "Number one centers" to sign

Signing somebody to a bloated contract for 8 years just because there is nobody better available in year 1 isn't exactly smart.

I'm not entirely sure that's where we're at with Phaneuf right now, but he was once an insta-sign for me and now I'm not too sure.

Yeah but how many great centers became available since the reign of Burke?  Carter, Richards, Staal, Segiun due to trade and Brad Richards due to UFA.  So even if there isn't a better defense men in year 1; it doesn't mean a better one will be available even 6 years down the road.

 

[bustaheims]

While I think re-signing Phaneuf is the way to go, with the way things are going, I wouldn't commit to anything until the team turns it around. If things keep going as they are now and the team continues to fall in the standings, Phaneuf could be an extremely valuable piece to move at the deadline. Of course, at that point, I'd be advocating moving about 2/3 of the roster, but, moving Phaneuf at that point could actually net them a significant piece or two, and they could conceivably bring him back as a UFA.

 

[BlueWhiteBlood]

We'll certainly get a couple games to see the team without him, unfortunately.

 

[Rebel_1812]

While I think re-signing Phaneuf is the way to go, with the way things are going, I wouldn't commit to anything until the team turns it around. If things keep going as they are now and the team continues to fall in the standings, Phaneuf could be an extremely valuable piece to move at the deadline. Of course, at that point, I'd be advocating moving about 2/3 of the roster, but, moving Phaneuf at that point could actually net them a significant piece or two, and they could conceivably bring him back as a UFA.

I'm not sure the tear everything down and rebuild model is the way to go.  Ottawa didn't trade away their best players like Spezza and seem to have rebounded.  The sharks haven't traded away Marleau or Thorton and are doing well.  If talent is a problem, trading away your best players isn't a good solution.

 

[bustaheims]

I'm not sure the tear everything down and rebuild model is the way to go.  Ottawa didn't trade away their best players like Spezza and seem to have rebounded.  The sharks haven't traded away Marleau or Thorton and are doing well.  If talent is a problem, trading away your best players isn't a good solution.

Who said anything about trading away the team's best players? Other than Phaneuf, who I'm only advocating that option for because he's a pending UFA, the guys that I'd move are the depth guys and the secondary guys. I wouldn't move Kessel, Kadri, JvR, etc. It's guys like Bolland, Raymond, McClement, Frason, Kulemin, Gunnarsson, etc that should be considered as trade bait should the team bottom out. Most of these guys are pending UFAs and are in line to be paid more than the Leafs should be giving them for what they provide.

EDIT: And, for what it's worth, the last time the Sharks missed the playoffs, they traded Nolan to the Leafs, and he was either their top scorer or 2nd leading scorer in 6 of the previous 7 seasons. The Sharks have never been in a position where they were going to missed the playoffs when either Marleau or Thornton were due to be UFAs. Same with Ottawa and Spezza.

 

[Rebel_1812]

I'm not sure the tear everything down and rebuild model is the way to go.  Ottawa didn't trade away their best players like Spezza and seem to have rebounded.  The sharks haven't traded away Marleau or Thorton and are doing well.  If talent is a problem, trading away your best players isn't a good solution.

Who said anything about trading away the team's best players? Other than Phaneuf, who I'm only advocating that option for because he's a pending UFA, the guys that I'd move are the depth guys and the secondary guys. I wouldn't move Kessel, Kadri, JvR, etc. It's guys like Bolland, Raymond, McClement, Frason, Kulemin, Gunnarsson, etc that should be considered as trade bait should the team bottom out. Most of these guys are pending UFAs and are in line to be paid more than the Leafs should be giving them for what they provide.

EDIT: And, for what it's worth, the last time the Sharks missed the playoffs, they traded Nolan to the Leafs, and he was either their top scorer or 2nd leading scorer in 6 of the previous 7 seasons. The Sharks have never been in a position where they were going to missed the playoffs when either Marleau or Thornton were due to be UFAs. Same with Ottawa and Spezza.

I was using that as an example of keeping the core top guys intact and just changing the secondary players.  I consider Phaneuf, Kessel and JVR as the leafs top players.  The rest can be traded.  Although I would keep Bolland since he would make suck a good number 2 center.

 

[Kin]

I'm not sure the tear everything down and rebuild model is the way to go.  Ottawa didn't trade away their best players like Spezza and seem to have rebounded.  The sharks haven't traded away Marleau or Thorton and are doing well.  If talent is a problem, trading away your best players isn't a good solution.

Except neither organization questioned whether or not those players were good enough in their respective roles to win championships with them. That's the question the Leafs are facing. Not whether or not Phaneuf is "good", it's whether he's good enough.

Regardless, I wouldn't use San Jose or Ottawa as examples of teams for whom everything worked out in the end. The team that did trade away Thornton might interest you though.

 

[ZBBM]

I'm not sure the tear everything down and rebuild model is the way to go.  Ottawa didn't trade away their best players like Spezza and seem to have rebounded.  The sharks haven't traded away Marleau or Thorton and are doing well.  If talent is a problem, trading away your best players isn't a good solution.

Except neither organization questioned whether or not those players were good enough in their respective roles to win championships with them. That's the question the Leafs are facing. Not whether or not Phaneuf is "good", it's whether he's good enough.

Regardless, I wouldn't use San Jose or Ottawa as examples of teams for whom everything worked out in the end. The team that did trade away Thornton might interest you though.

I'll say it plain and simple: Phaneuf is good, but not good enough to build a championship defense around.  The thought of locking him up for 7 more years as captain makes me ... well, not sick to my stomach ... how about just unhappy?

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I'll say it plain and simple: Phaneuf is good, but not good enough to build a championship defense around.

There's no real point in talking absolutes about things you can't prove.  The answer is going to be different for every person.

 

[moon111]

I'm not sure the tear everything down and rebuild model is the way to go.  Ottawa didn't trade away their best players like Spezza and seem to have rebounded.  The sharks haven't traded away Marleau or Thorton and are doing well.  If talent is a problem, trading away your best players isn't a good solution.

Except neither organization questioned whether or not those players were good enough in their respective roles to win championships with them. That's the question the Leafs are facing. Not whether or not Phaneuf is "good", it's whether he's good enough.

Regardless, I wouldn't use San Jose or Ottawa as examples of teams for whom everything worked out in the end. The team that did trade away Thornton might interest you though.

I'll say it plain and simple: Phaneuf is good, but not good enough to build a championship defense around.  The thought of locking him up for 7 more years as captain makes me ... well, not sick to my stomach ... how about just unhappy?

In Toronto, if you're the best we can do, we pay you the best even if.

 

[ZBBM]

I'll say it plain and simple: Phaneuf is good, but not good enough to build a championship defense around.

There's no real point in talking absolutes about things you can't prove.  The answer is going to be different for every person.

Not sure what you're getting at.  I've stated my opinion without qualification; that's what we do here all the time.

 

[ZBBM]

I'm not sure the tear everything down and rebuild model is the way to go.  Ottawa didn't trade away their best players like Spezza and seem to have rebounded.  The sharks haven't traded away Marleau or Thorton and are doing well.  If talent is a problem, trading away your best players isn't a good solution.

Except neither organization questioned whether or not those players were good enough in their respective roles to win championships with them. That's the question the Leafs are facing. Not whether or not Phaneuf is "good", it's whether he's good enough.

Regardless, I wouldn't use San Jose or Ottawa as examples of teams for whom everything worked out in the end. The team that did trade away Thornton might interest you though.

I'll say it plain and simple: Phaneuf is good, but not good enough to build a championship defense around.  The thought of locking him up for 7 more years as captain makes me ... well, not sick to my stomach ... how about just unhappy?

In Toronto, if you're the best we can do, we pay you the best even if.

Well put.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I'll say it plain and simple: Phaneuf is good, but not good enough to build a championship defense around.

There's no real point in talking absolutes about things you can't prove.  The answer is going to be different for every person.

Not sure what you're getting at.  I've stated my opinion without qualification; that's what we do here all the time.

Well I know it's an opinion, but isn't it like me saying "Stamkos is good but not good enough to build a championship forward group around."  What's the basis for my statement?  You can't prove or disprove it until he potentially wins the Stanley Cup.  I think opinions still need to be held to a certain standard, no? 

And I think certain criticisms of players (and even Sundin falls into this one) are unfair because championships are team trophies and it's not Sundin's fault he was never on a Cup-winning team, or Bourque's fault he had to be traded to a Cup-winning team to get one.  Sometimes players' fortunes aren't the greatest, but I don't think that's because these players could not be built around into a winning team.  They just weren't for whatever myriad reasons.

Tried to explain that bet I could.  If it doesn't make sense, c'est la vie.

 

[Kin]

I'll say it plain and simple: Phaneuf is good, but not good enough to build a championship defense around.

Well, we can think something like that through. If we look back at the last 20 years of hockey who are some of the worst #1 defensemen whose teams won cups? Right off the top of my head the guys who come to mind are Sandis Ozolinsh in '96 with Colorado, Dan Boyle in Tampa, Bret Hedican with Carolina and Sergei Gonchar in Pittsburgh.

Does Phaneuf fit somewhere into that group? Yeah. I mean, Ozolinsh and Gonchar were really terrific offensive defensemen, Boyle wasn't quite at the Olympic level he eventually became and Hedican is the obvious outlier there whose team won in a profoundly strange year looking back.

But the thing that those 4 teams have in common? They killed you down the middle. Pittsburgh had Crosby and Malkin at their peak, Carolina had Staal scoring 100 points and Brind'Amour winning the Selke, Tampa had Lecavalier and Richards and St. Louis winning the Hart/Art Ross and Colorado obviously had Sakic/Forsberg.

So I might not go so far as to say that Phaneuf couldn't be the #1 defenseman on a cup winning team but, if he is, I really have to believe that said hypothetical team would not be one where the defense shook anyone but that could just bludgeon a team with talent elsewhere. That's where I think the problem is there. Winning a cup with Phaneuf as your team's top defenseman seems possible, winning a cup with Phaneuf as one of your team's best players, on the other hand, kind of flies in the face of history.

 

[Kin]

Well I know it's an opinion, but isn't it like me saying "Stamkos is good but not good enough to build a championship forward group around."  What's the basis for my statement? 

Well, you could always qualitatively assess Stamkos and compare him to the best forwards on teams that have won cups in the past. A group he'd seemingly fit pretty well into.

 

[ZBBM]

I'll say it plain and simple: Phaneuf is good, but not good enough to build a championship defense around.

There's no real point in talking absolutes about things you can't prove.  The answer is going to be different for every person.

Not sure what you're getting at.  I've stated my opinion without qualification; that's what we do here all the time.

Well I know it's an opinion, but isn't it like me saying "Stamkos is good but not good enough to build a championship forward group around."  What's the basis for my statement?  You can't prove or disprove it until he potentially wins the Stanley Cup.  I think opinions still need to be held to a certain standard, no? 

And I think certain criticisms of players (and even Sundin falls into this one) are unfair because championships are team trophies and it's not Sundin's fault he was never on a Cup-winning team, or Bourque's fault he had to be traded to a Cup-winning team to get one.  Sometimes players' fortunes aren't the greatest, but I don't think that's because these players could not be built around into a winning team.  They just weren't for whatever myriad reasons.

Tried to explain that bet I could.  If it doesn't make sense, c'est la vie.

Well, Nik answered it far more thoroughly than I would, with examples to back it up.  All I was going to say is that Phaneuf has too many flaws in his game (as good as he is, and has been this season) and that, as captain, he hasn't seemed to be able to elevate the level of the team at all ... which, for example, Sundin pretty clearly did -- and even that wasn't enough.

If the cap were already at $80 or $90M and we already had a Norris defenseman that Phaneuf could complement, then the reported 7x7 would be swallowable to me.  When the spotlight is on him, though?  No.

 

[azzurri63]

I would honestly take a chance at trading him for some more pieces. I know Potvin you think I harp on Phaneuf and I do, but I totally agree with some of the others. He has played well this season, probably the best since he's come to TO. Like I posted a while back you think being in his last year that has anything to do with it. The money they are talking is in my mind overpayment.  Like McFate said too many flaws. He is said to be the most overrated player in the league and that comes from the players. Whether that is true or not I don't know. Personally don't think he is but I do think he is overrated. Burke traded for him to make a big splash and then made him captain. I have heard from a friend of mine that one of the Leafs current players has stated he is not the best guy in the dressing room. Again you can take that anyway you want. I know he logged a lot of minutes over the years and I have said I think that hurts his game. Believe he is playing slightly less this year. If they could keep him at a slightly reduced cap then keep him otherwise trade him. Better yet trade him and then maybe resign him.